AMIT VERMA Vs. SR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -ORDER dated 12. 7. 2007 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been taken in appeal by the appellant. The case of the appellant in brief is that he had qualified to appear for the second stage examination of Civil Services Examination and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had fixed the date of said examination for 21. 10. 2005. On 8. 8. 2005, UPSC sent him the requisite form through speed post which was to be delivered at his home address. The case of the appellant is that the said Form was delivered at his residence on 23. 8. 2005. As per the procedure prescribed by the UPSC the said form was required to be deposited in the office of the UPSC on 22. 8. 2005. In case of non-delivery of that Form to an eligible candidate upto the fixed timelimit of 15. 8. 2005, then he was required to contact at once either the Commission or the "facilitation Counter" for getting the new one. It is alleged that the appellant had been daily visiting the Sub-post Office, Nagrota which is located in his home town upto the last date of 15. 8. 2005. On 19. 8. 2005, the appellant contacted on telephone the office of UPSC at Delhi and informed the concerned officials about the non-receipt of the requisite form. In response, the officials of the UPSC directed him to come personally to collect the form. Thereafter on the same day i. e. on 19. 8. 2005, the complainant went to Delhi and collected the " Form" which could not be filled by him there on the spot because certain entries could not be made because of non-availability of relevant record. He was thus compelled to come back to Jammu on 20. 8. 2005 and left for Delhi on the next day, i. e. on 21. 8. 2005. After completing the formalities of filling the "form", he submitted the same in the office of UPSC on 22. 8. 2005. It was on 23. 8. 2005 that appellant received the "application form" at his home address though another duly filled in form already stood deposited by him in Delhi. It is also alleged that eleven days delay was wilful as a result of negligent conduct. In the normal course of conduct, the Form should have been received within 6 to 8 days from its date of despatch. The respondent in their written version have admitted that the speed post in question was received in Railway Mail Service (RMS) Bhawan, Jammu on 10. 8. 2005 but it was misplaced and with great efforts could be located on 21,8. 2005. It is further stated that speed post parcel in question was sent through speed post from Post Office Centre RMS Bhawan, Jammu to CRC, Jammu on 22. 8. 2005 and was received at "kandoli Nagrota Branch" of the OPs on 23. 8. 2005 where it was delivered to the appellant on the same day.

(2.) THE appellant had claimed the following reliefs:

(3.) THROUGH the medium of this appeal the order has been challenged mainly on the following grounds- (a) Whether unexplained delay as to the fact that speed post parcel in question remained in RMS Bhawan, Jammu from 10. 8. 2005 to 21. 8. 2005 could not constitute deficiency in service as being negligence or default on the part of the respondents within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act? (b) Whether the transmitted charges paid by the appellant to UPSC for sending parcel in question through speed post could not qualify appellant to become a consumer as defined in Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act? (c) Whether provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the guidelines and rules made thereunder over-ride the application of the provisions of the Act?